role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 20, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 20 April 2009 Lundi 20 avril 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

POVERTY

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

GREEN POWER GENERATION

PUBLIC HEALTH

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

ELDER ABUSE

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

ONTARIO ARTISTS

MOOSE TAGS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN CORPS ASSOCIATION

BRAMPTON SPELLING BEE

PEMBROKE LUMBER KINGS

WESTON COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

RED BARN THEATRE

FOREST INDUSTRY

CITY OF CORNWALL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CHANTAL BERTRAND

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

(VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE ET

HARCÈLEMENT AU TRAVAIL)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

PETITIONS

TAXATION

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

GARDE D'ENFANTS

SALES TAX

PROPERTY TAXATION

LUPUS

TAXATION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

CHILD CUSTODY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Islamic prayer.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm very pleased to recognize four physicians from the Canadian Dermatology Association: Dr. Cheryl Rosen, Dr. Peter Vignevich, Dr. Lisa Kellett and Dr. Vince Bertucci. They're here to conduct a skin cancer screening clinic from approximately 11:30 to 2 p.m. in room 228. I'd encourage all members to go. Two years ago I went to this clinic, and they discovered I had skin cancer. I was treated as a result of the preventive measures. So I'd urge members to go, and I want to thank the members of the Canadian Dermatology Association for being with us today and providing this clinic for all members, staff and journalists. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's my pleasure to introduce representatives today from ACTRA Toronto: Heather Allin-Pres, Wendy Crewson, Peter Keleghan, Mayko Nguyen, Gordon Pinsent, Art Hindle and Brian Topp. Thank you all for coming today.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm delighted: Today we have as guests, in the east members' gallery, Hans and Gertrud Feldmann. They are with us from Parry Sound, formerly farmers from the Listowel area.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It's my pleasure to introduce Bev Currie, the mother of page Robyn Currie, and her grandparents Alan and Helen Currie.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Good morning. It's my pleasure to introduce, from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, William Burch, a student who is with us today.

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to welcome Andrew Vellathottam and Nicole Hawkins, chairs of the Ontario Medical Students Association, along with 45 medical students and residents, who are joining us at Queen's Park today for the Ontario Medical Association and PAIRO medical student day. Thanks to the Ontario Medical Association for hosting this.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. It deals with the McGuinty sales tax. Every single day, more and more victims of Dalton McGuinty's indifferent attitude toward taxpayers are coming forward. It's becoming clear that the Premier went ahead with this tax grab behind the backs of his own caucus.

Sorry, that should be going to the Premier. I was told he wasn't going to be here.

Once again, as you tried in 2004, you're nickel-and-diming hard-working people for tax on meals at restaurants, coffee shops, hospital waiting rooms: déjà vu all over again in the form of a soup-and-sandwich tax.

Premier, are you not at all concerned that Ontarians—seniors, students, young families, those on fixed incomes—are realizing that you went ahead with this tax grab without thinking it through?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague. First of all, I want to assure him and Ontarians that we spent a lot of time thinking about this. We weighed the fact that what is happening out there, globally speaking, is very, very big. It is proving to be powerful and very persistent.

Some, like my honourable colleague, would argue that there's no need for us to do anything, that the world as it existed before this worldwide recession will somehow return to us and everything will be restored to its natural order. We don't believe that. We think we've got to do something; we have to do it together.

I know that what I'm asking of Ontarians is not easy; I understand that. But I think it's absolutely essential that we find a way to move forward together. That's why we're going to move ahead with a single sales tax. That's why we're going to cut personal income taxes and cut corporate taxes. We have to do these things to put ourselves on a stronger footing so we can seize new possibilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Our caucus was relentless in fighting the Premier's earlier attempt at a soup-and-sandwich tax grab, and we're prepared to do it again. We know, and I think Ontarians know, that this is nothing more than a different wolf in the same McGuinty clothing.

My colleague from Simcoe North said it perfectly in 2004, after you backed away from the soup-and-sandwich tax: "Hold on to your wallets, because who knows what Dalton will go after next?"

It was a shameless tax attempt, and again we're seeing that there's nothing this Premier isn't prepared to go after to feed his tax cravings, even if it means taxing a family going for an ice cream, or young people getting a slice of pizza on the way to work.

Premier, how can you not see that this sales tax is a full-bore attack on seniors going out for a coffee, on a parent taking her daughter and friends to a local restaurant for a birthday party, on students and on families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One hundred and thirty other countries have done this, as have four other provinces. I think that even my honourable colleague would admit, in a dispassionate and objective way, that this is the kind of step that has been recommended by thoughtful economists for a long, long time.

The reason that my honourable colleague did not do it when he was in government, and the reason that the NDP did not do it in government, is because it is fraught with political risk, to be honest. It is fraught with political risk. But we've been hired on to do a particular job on this side of the House, and that is to provide leadership. The world as we knew it before the recession has left us. My friends may think it's going to be the same and we need do nothing to make ourselves stronger. I disagree with that.

That is why, as we move forward, we're cutting personal income taxes in the province of Ontario for 93% of Ontarians. We think that's going to be very helpful as they proceed with grappling with the new single sales tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, in terms of sincerity, I want to quote the Premier: "You don't have to spend too much time outside of this place to talk to real people at the street level to gain an understanding that there is simply no tolerance whatsoever left for increased taxes in this province. People have had it up to here and beyond when it comes to taxes."

That was you, Premier, in 1994, speaking to Bob Rae, whose tax-and-spending deficit and debt-building records you've smashed. Now you are going after soup and sandwiches.

Approximately 1.5 million meals priced under $4 are sold every day in our province. Approximately 86% of all meals in school cafeterias are priced under $4, Premier.

Premier, are you and your colleagues, your silent backbenchers, bankrupt to the point where you feel the need to force seniors and kids to pay a tax on a cup of coffee or a sandwich?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague would like to take a look at the package in a more fulsome manner, and I'll speak to that now.

We are going to proceed with a tax cut for 93% of Ontarians: We're going to provide families earning less than $160,000 with $1,000 in payments; individuals earning less than $80,000 with $300 in payments. There's a new Ontario sales tax credit—$260 each for adults and children—which is permanent annual tax relief. We're also going to ensure, for example, that a single parent on social assistance with two children will save over $1,200 under our new plan; a single parent earning $25,000 with one child will save over $1,100 under our tax plan.

Again, I'm saying it is not easy, but it's essential, and we've done it in a way that protects the overwhelming majority of Ontario families.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier: I'd like to read into the record an e-mail I received from a constituent of one of the Liberal backbenchers. "Mr. Runciman please see the latest letter I have sent to Mr. Duncan trying to get answers ... as you can see Mr. Duncan doesn't even feel he needs to respond to a citizen, with a legitimate question and concern. This level of Liberal arrogance is beyond my understanding...."

Premier, do you feel it's acceptable to a hard-working family that the Minister of Finance doesn't care enough to respond to an Ontarian's very real and legitimate concern about your latest tax increase not once, but twice?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to commend the Minister of Finance in his absence. He's working hard. He's on the road now to speak to foreign investors in our bond. I can say that the minister, like every member of our caucus, has given careful thought as to what we need to do together to strengthen ourselves.

My friend opposite believes that we need do nothing. He believes firmly in the power of inaction. We reject that. We think our world has changed. We think we have to take certain kinds of steps. We think that we've been given a special responsibility to demonstrate leadership. That's what we're doing. We're doing it in a way that protects the overwhelming majority of Ontario families. We're doing it in a way that will strengthen our businesses and make them more competitive so they can create more jobs and hire more of us, and generate the wealth to support our schools, our hospitals and supports for our vulnerable. That's why we're moving in that direction.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This is a constituent of a Liberal backbencher, a backbencher who was led down the garden path by this Premier and his Minister of Finance who was signing a deal with the federal government behind the backs of his own caucus. They have a clear and direct question about your sales tax grab.

I want to quote directly from what the constituent has asked the Minister of Finance not once, but twice:

"Although we have firmed up our offer to purchase prior to the budget announcement, our possession date will fall outside the deadline of June 2010 where the effect of the additional PST may be added. The PST will cause an approximate $40,000 difference in additional costs to our new home purchase.

"My question is ... will the PST component be grandfathered backward for people in our situation?"

Premier, is the Minister of Finance incapable of answering this question or simply choosing to ignore this hard-working family?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind members of this House that my honourable colleague the leader of the official opposition, when first asked about the single sales tax, said that in principle he supports such a tax, so I'm just wondering why he might have changed his mind at this point in time.

I want to remind Ontarians that we put in place a complete exemption from the new single sales tax and its provincial component for homes up to $400,000. It's phased in between $400,000 and $500,000. The overwhelming majority of new home purchases in the province of Ontario are valued at less than $400,000. That means the overwhelming majority of Ontario families who buy brand new homes will not be encountering any new expenses.

Again, what I'm saying to Ontario families and businesses is we need to do this together; we need to make ourselves stronger; we need to become more competitive; we need to generate more wealth to support all those public services that all our families count on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Premier, this is a huge issue with significant implications. Thousands of Ontarians have made commitments on new homes with closing dates after July 1 of next year. They have a right to know now whether your tax grab will hit them. The Minister of Finance has refused to answer. I have to ask, is this just another indication that you people don't have a clue about what you're doing over there?

This appears to be the standard McGuinty approach to tax policy: Never properly think it through, break your promises, grab the money and run and then let the chips fall where they may.

Premier, is that what this is all about: McGuinty government incompetence?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always grateful for the positive encouragement from my colleague opposite. I obviously have a different perspective than does he on this particular matter, as in so many others, but I appreciate the vibrant debate that this question period gives me an opportunity to engage in.

Again, our world has changed. We need to do certain kinds of things in the province of Ontario to make ourselves stronger, to ensure that we always have the capacity to turn to our children and say: "In the time of this great recession, we took a difficult step, but we knew it was an essential step. We did it so that you could have good schools and your kids will have good schools. We did it so that you could have good health care and your family will have access to good health care.

We did this so that if anybody in your family needs supports because they're most vulnerable, we've got the capacity collectively to provide those kinds of supports. We did it to ensure that our businesses could compete in a global economy so that they could create more jobs and hire more of us and generate more wealth." That's—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Premier. New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Here's the state of Ontario's economy: After more than five years on this government's watch, 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost, an unemployment rate in this province soon to hit double digits and a confused, bewildered government which has no answers to the pension crisis, no answers to the auto crisis and no answers to the crisis in forestry and mining. Why is this government failing these industries, these workers and these families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As I think I said a few times in this House, the most recent estimate from the United Nations is that we are going to lose from 40 million to 50 million jobs worldwide. Notwithstanding my honourable colleague's effort to indict the government here at Queen's Park with exclusive responsibility for a worldwide recession, I just don't believe Ontarians are prepared to accept that.

We are going to continue to move forward with our five-point plan. We're going to continue to invest in the things that will make us stronger. We will also move ahead with corporate tax cuts. We're going to move ahead with more supports for people who are losing their jobs, more supports for communities that are caught up in this distress caused by a worldwide recession. As well, we're going to cut taxes for Ontarians; 93% of Ontarians will experience a tax cut.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While this government is struggling for answers, Ontario workers went through another long and agonizing weekend. Here are some examples. In Sudbury, the Vale Inco shutdown will affect 5,000 workers, leaving the Sudbury nickel mine silent this summer. There's an eight-week closure at the Xstrata copper smelter near Timmins. And AbitibiBowater, as we all know, filed for bankruptcy. In response, this government had a photo op in Chapleau that created less than 40 jobs.

Does this government think that a photo op and 40 jobs make up for the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost across northern Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague may be dismissive of 40 jobs in Chapleau, but I was in Chapleau and had an opportunity to speak with the people there, the young entrepreneurs in an organization that is 51% owned by the aboriginal community in that part of Ontario. They're very proud of the effort that they're making, very proud of those jobs that they're creating. I'm very proud to associate with that business and to help put them on a stronger financial footing going forward.

My friend may be dismissive of those kinds of steps, and there are a myriad of them that we're taking around this province, but that's exactly the kind of approach that we will continue to take: work with entrepreneurs, work with our communities and create those jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know it's a similar story across southern Ontario as well. GM and Chrysler are on the verge of bankruptcy. Jobs and pensions are on the line, yet we hear precious little from this government. Why is the government standing on the sidelines while the financial security of tens of thousands of Ontario families hangs in the balance?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I really don't understand where my honourable colleague is coming from on this score. She knows that we have been working with the federal government, together with Washington, to do what we can together to lend support to an auto sector that is struggling in North America. We've now put forward over $1 billion in support by way of short-term financing, for GM and Chrysler in particular. We are encouraging Chrysler and CAW to pursue their negotiations. We stand at the ready to play a still greater role.

We understand that, globally, we are the only subnational jurisdiction that is at the table when it comes to supporting our auto sector. So again, I just don't understand where my colleague is coming from when she says that we're not there for the auto sector and autoworkers in Ontario.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps I can help the Premier, because there's more. In Niagara, at John Deere, GM, Vale Inco and Abitibi, thousands of good-paying jobs are gone or in doubt. The backbone of Niagara's entire economy—down the drain. What does the Premier have to say to the hard-working people of Niagara region?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would say don't give in to the pessimism, the negativity and the gloomy outlook of the opposition. That is just not helpful.

I understand that these are challenging times and that many of our families have been affected and, indeed, have been hurt by this. But I want to reassure them that they have a government in place that will never give up on them and never give in to that negativity and that pessimism. That's why we're continuing to move ahead with our budget. Notwithstanding these difficult financial times, we can assure our families we are investing more in their schools, in their health care, in supports for the vulnerable. We're going to build new hospitals in that part of Ontario as well. We're also investing in more training opportunities for folks who have lost their jobs.

So again, I want to say that we understand these are difficult times, that they are up against it, but I want them to know this government is in their corner.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government's budget answer was the wrong answer. Here's what their answer was: more than $4 billion in corporate tax cuts, not to the companies that are hurting, but to profitable corporations. This government is giving away billions and billions of dollars to companies that do not need it and standing idly by while the jobs and pensions of tens of thousands of people disappear. How does this government justify the choices that it is making?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just so we put things in some perspective here, the budget is about building both a more competitive and caring Ontario. While we have cut business taxes—we will be cutting business taxes by $4.5 billion over three years—we're cutting them for people by $10.6 billion over three years. At the same time, we are investing in more affordable housing; we're investing in more health care, more education, more post-secondary education.

We're putting $32.5 billion into infrastructure to create those hospitals, schools, roads and public transit that benefit our communities and create 300,000 jobs in the short order, exactly when we need them. I would just ask my colleague to bring a more balanced, more measured consideration to the facts that make up our budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The $4-billion corporate tax giveaway is the wrong policy at the wrong time. It's based on bad economics, plain and simple. The focus should be on sustaining jobs and protecting pensions. That's what Ontarians need to get through these extraordinarily difficult times, but that's not what the government is doing. When will this government admit it made the wrong choice when we, as a province, and the people of this province can least afford it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We took a lot of time to consider the advice that we have received. I'm not sure any Minister of Finance has ever engaged in more consultation than did Minister Duncan in preparation for the budget that we recently introduced in this House. These are very difficult times. It's the greatest economic crisis we've had to grapple with in 80 years. And it's not just affecting us and the rest of Canada or the US; it's affecting the world.

We thought it was important to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we understand the significance of this crisis before us and that it's important for us to take bold steps, and that's what we are doing. We're moving ahead with a single sales tax, we are cutting taxes for 92% of Ontarians, we are reducing business taxes so that our businesses can grow stronger and become more competitive and create more jobs. It's not an easy thing to do, but we believe it is absolutely essential to get Ontario on a firmer footing.

TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Minister, as you know, the golf club course sector is a very important part of our tourism industry here in the province, providing tens of thousands of jobs, many to students, billions of dollars of investments, and of course they've had some difficult times as well. Minister, can you explain to the House today who your government consulted with in the golf club sector, as well as the tourism sector, before proceeding with the 8% tax harmonization increase?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As the member knows, the Minister of Finance consulted broadly in the leadup to the budget. We also had the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs that travelled across the province, and the Minister of Finance did extensive consultations with a variety of stakeholders. I, too, have met with a number of our stakeholders in tourism, and I look forward to the $40 million that will be flowing to our tourist destination marketing organization, starting with the single sales tax next year.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, maybe you should have consulted with some of your Liberal friends. I have a quote: "But let me repeat, so there's no doubt about it. No Liberal Party with a brain in its head is going to raise taxes in the middle of a recession." That was said by Michael Ignatieff last week, on April 16.

Minister, I made a point last week of contacting the owners of 10 golf courses. I asked them, with the 8% tax increase in the cost to their customers, how it would impact jobs, and in particular student jobs. They unanimously agreed that the HST would—

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, you might think it's funny. It's costing us jobs here, if you don't have a clue.

They unanimously agreed that the HST would have a negative impact and that between three and seven jobs would be lost on each golf course. Minister, that's an average of 50 jobs on 10 golf courses in one small part of the province. As Minister of Tourism, what will you do to ensure that no further jobs are lost in the tourism sector as a result of your HST—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As the member well knows, and as the Premier has discussed on a number of occasions this morning, by moving to a single sales tax, we'll make our tax system more efficient, saving business costs on their investment inputs, and that will be a saving of more than $500 million a year in paperwork costs alone. This will make Ontario more competitive and will lead to more jobs and new investment.

We're also cutting taxes for small businesses, which, as the member knows, are the backbone of tourism across the province, and this will help create jobs and grow even stronger businesses. The corporate income tax rate for small businesses will be cut by 18%. Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in Canada to eliminate the small business deduction surtax, removing a significant barrier for growth for many of our small businesses. We're also lowering the general income tax rate for corporations to 12% from 14% on July 1, 2010, and to 10% in 2013.

We are helping our small businesses, including those—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Today's Toronto Star reports that 450 organizations criticized the McGuinty government's poverty reduction bill because it doesn't require governments to work for a poverty-free Ontario. Will the minister commit now to include the goal of poverty elimination in the bill or does the minister accept that Ontarians, particularly those with no children, should suffer poverty, hunger, homelessness and sickness from now until all eternity?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course, I am committed to reducing poverty for all people in this province. We have made a very big step forward. We have released the first poverty reduction strategy. The legislation that is before committee today and tomorrow takes it further, so that subsequent governments will be mandated to bring forth comprehensive poverty reduction strategies going forward.

There is a lot of work to be done. Clearly we have a long way to go, but we're taking very important steps: the first step, the release of the strategy; the second step with the legislation.

I say to the member once again that we need the support of all people in this House if we want to reduce poverty in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: If the minister truly wanted to help all people, there wouldn't have been 2% coming next November for all those people who don't have children.

Sarah Blackstock of the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction says this: The purpose of poverty reduction strategies must be to create a poverty-free Ontario and the bill should explicitly say that. If that's not the goal, why are we doing this?" The very first clause in Quebec's successful poverty reduction act commits the government "to strive toward a poverty-free Quebec." Why won't the McGuinty government listen to and give hope to the men and women in Ontario who are hurting the most and commit now to work for an Ontario without poverty?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier, today and tomorrow the committee will be hearing from a number of people. I know that there are written submissions coming from others. I can tell you that we're going to listen very carefully to what people have to say. We want this legislation to be strong, to be meaningful. I think it's very important, though, to acknowledge that we are a leading jurisdiction in the world when it comes to poverty reduction, and I'm proud of that record. I look forward to hearing what people have to say, and we will carefully consider the recommendations that we hear.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Last week and over the weekend, I've seen stories in the newspaper and on television about the closure of Conquest Vacations. Many individuals and families seem to have been caught off guard by this news. Travellers who are currently on a Conquest holiday are obviously very worried. We've been hearing of hotels threatening to block travellers from leaving unless they pay outrageous fees on top of what they originally paid Conquest.

As the minister responsible for consumer protection here in Ontario, can you tell me what is being done to ensure that travellers already abroad get home safely and that consumers who have purchased travel services from Conquest will be compensated?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: First of all, I really want to thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for asking this question. Conquest Vacations, Inc. actually voluntarily terminated their wholesale registration and operations after 37 years in business, and that has caused some inconvenience to the travellers and vacationers who have been vacationing outside.

We are very fortunate that in Ontario, consumers are protected by the Travel Industry Act, 2002, and the travel industry compensation fund. I'm going to be very pleased to outline some of the things that TICO, the organization that is responsible for the management of this act and for the compensation fund, has been doing. They have put an advisory on the website informing travellers what to do, but they also have worked very aggressively with chartering planes and with other carriers to bring all the vacationers back home to Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Minister, I'm glad to hear that TICO is taking these steps to ensure consumers can enjoy their holidays uninterrupted and return home to Ontario safely. However, there are still many consumers who purchased Conquest travel services who have not yet departed and whose travel plans have been cancelled due to Conquest's closure.

Minister, as we all know, these are challenging economic times and Ontario families, more than ever, are conscious of how they spend their hard-earned money. Ontario consumers want to be reassured that they will be reimbursed, whether it's through their credit card provider or other means. Can you tell me what steps are being taken to ensure customers who have purchased Conquest vacations and have not yet taken them will not lose any of their hard-earned money because of the company's closure?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: As I said, Ontario consumers actually are protected by the travel industry compensation fund; we are one of three provinces in Canada that have this fund established, which protects consumers. But in addition to that, I want to say this fund actually is well funded. There's about $29 million in this fund. TICO is working very aggressively with all the people who have booked their vacations so that their claims can be processed as quickly as possible, so that they are not out of pocket on any of these items.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Despite the fact that there is scientific, documented proof of serious health effects from exposure to wind turbines, you have thus far refused to conduct full, independent assessments of these health effects. As you know, there have been people appearing before the committee indicating the adverse effects that they have suffered. Having heard some of the evidence, Minister, are you prepared to address the issue and do an analysis of the health concerns that have been brought forward?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member for the question and I want to thank the members of the legislative committee who spent a considerable amount of last week hearing from a wide variety of perspectives on the Green Energy Act.

We know that there is a tremendous amount of support for the Green Energy Act. We also know that some concerns are raised around health matters and we think it's incredibly important that we take those very seriously. As the committee hearings continue to go forward, there will be opportunity for people to bring amendments, as an example. But at the heart of it, what we intend to do through the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment is to establish universally strong setbacks across the province of Ontario, unlike the patchwork quilt which has emerged so far, that are designed with the best science in mind related to the natural environment, and certainly related to human health.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, I didn't hear a "yes" from the minister indicating that they were going to do any health study regarding the adverse health effects that have been reported by people appearing before the committee. Whether it's migraines, whether it's sleeplessness or a list of other health effects, they are quite numerous.

I know that you're going to hear from individuals this week who are going to continue to provide you with evidence—scientific evidence—from around the world. Will you, after hearing the evidence this week, take it all into consideration and will you finally do the health study that is necessary to reassure the public that there will not be adverse health effects, which people are already suffering to date?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think what this debate has shown, which is kind of interesting, is that that party has reverted to a position of supporting coal as part of our energy supply mix. I want to remind the former health minister that the Ontario Medical Association—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: Oh, they don't like it, but several of them are on a record called Hansard where they talked about coal. We know that the Ontario Medical Association has said that between 2,000 and 3,000 people in the province of Ontario died prematurely, associated with coal. It's interesting to see their policy critic articulating their view in favour of coal.

But on this matter of health concerns—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: Oh, a sensitive subject, I think. But on this matter of health concerns related to wind turbines, yes, we're taking very seriously the concerns that are being raised. We expect for the Ministry of the Environment to put in place very, very strong protections for human health and we'll listen very carefully to reports that have come from all over the world around—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

PUBLIC HEALTH

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The Ontario acting chief medical officer of health released his report on the management of the listeriosis outbreak that killed 16 Ontarians. Dr. Williams's report paints a disturbing picture of a public health system that failed to communicate with the general public. It gets even worse: It relied on Maple Leaf executives to do that work.

Families and friends of the 16 people who died from this outbreak deserve to know that it won't happen again. What Ontarians want to know is, why was the minister missing in action?

Hon. David Caplan: I think the member lets her rhetoric get carried away. Quite frankly, Dr. Williams and his team in public health did an outstanding job protecting Ontarians. It was because of the lessons that we learned from SARS that the IPHIS system was put in place and, through a number of instances that were found around the province, they were able to piece together these different pieces of evidence to be able to alert federal officials to the fact that they believed that there was a food-borne illness.

Dr. Williams and his team did an outstanding job to protect the public health of Ontarians. Notwithstanding the member's comments, I want to thank Dr. Williams here and now—as I have had the chance to privately—for the kind of work and dedication that his team, the Ontario lab system and the Ontario public health network have put in place to protect the health and safety of Ontarians. That will be in place in the future to ensure that Ontarians have the kind of public health—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The fact remains that in the post-SARS era, Ontario's public health system failed to communicate to the public. It is six years post-SARS and nothing has changed. There are still 13 out of 36 health units that lack a permanent, full-time medical officer of health; yet the decision to communicate to the public continues to be left to the discretion of the medical officer of health. How many more fiascos like this need to happen before this minister takes public health seriously?

Hon. David Caplan: Again, the member's rhetoric doesn't match up with the facts. The facts are these: We have learned the lessons of SARS and put in place the public health network, which was able to detect it. In fact, we have, after years of downloading begun under the New Democratic Party, begun to upload public health costs—

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: I hear the member from Welland say he's sorry, but I'm sorry, sir: The fact is that that is the history, the sorry legacy of the New Democrats to download these costs onto municipalities. That's why, under this government, we have uploaded those costs. As well, we have provided a tremendous increase in resources to public health. Dr. Williams did indicate the need for a federal lead in a national food-borne illness outbreak, and we have made those recommendations to our federal counterparts at the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I hope that they—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, first of all let me thank you for visiting the riding of Northumberland—Quinte West last week to visit three schools. Thank you for your interest.

My question today is to the Minister of the Environment. There's no question our climate is changing, and we all have a responsibility to act, as a government and as individuals, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I know that our government is committed to reducing greenhouse gases and setting aggressive reduction targets of 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% below 1990 levels by 2020. If Ontario is to meet these goals, then everyone must participate. We know that to reach these targets there are significant actions that our government must take, like our plan to close down coal.

In my riding, in the community of Cobourg, there were some funding initiatives by your ministry to help that happen. Minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, the member is quite right. The community go green fund finances projects that inform, teach and motivate people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to fight climate change. I hope we're all in favour of fighting climate change in this House.

On Friday, we had the pleasure of announcing that 34 community groups across Ontario will receive a total of $2.15 million in provincial funding. This is for projects that by activity, scope and audience will encourage lifestyle changes that are better for our environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So in Cobourg, a fund of $84,000 over two years went to Citizens for a Sustainable Cobourg. It basically will provide a central information clearing house for programs, incentives and tips about energy efficiency, alternative technology and waste reduction. That will help Cobourg meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by some 23,000 tonnes over the next few years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I know that creating the Cobourg Go Green Centre will provide valuable information to those in my community who are looking for a way to reduce their environmental footprint.

While today marks the beginning of Earth Week, Ontarians are no longer waiting for a single day, week or month to consider their impact on our earth and take action; they are looking for ways to reduce their footprint every day of the year. They know that we only have one planet and we have to change our habits and the way we live to protect our homes. It is often local community-level programs, like those recognized by the community go green fund, that are among the best ways to mobilize Ontarians.

Could the minister tell this House about the community-based projects helping Ontarians to do their part that are supported by the community go green fund? For those who are interested in the fund, will there be another chance to make an application?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, 34 community groups have received funding. Amongst them, for example, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has received $40,000 for a two-year program called Green on Top at Waterdown, where high school students will design and build renewable energy projects at their school.

Also, in Dufferin—Caledon, the Caledon Countryside Alliance received almost $15,000 for Take a Bite out of Climate Change. It's a program to rebuild the local food and farming system in Caledon and link local food and farming with greenhouse gas emissions.

In Parkdale—High Park, the Greenest City environmental organization received $58,000 over two years for From the Ground Up. It's an innovative project that offers the people of Toronto's Parkdale district the capacity, support and space needed to grow local food. The next round of funding will come out in the fall of this year.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, it is clear from the recent Fraser Institute report that your approach to teaching our kids is flawed. Your plan is not working; in fact, I wonder if there really is a plan. I suspect that there is a patchwork quilt of policies that do not form a cohesive, functional plan for the benefit of all the students of this province—and I emphasize all the students.

Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute says, "There's not another major district in the province that performed more poorly than the Toronto District School Board.... It's quite unusual that the ... metropolitan area in the province is doing so poorly."

Torontonians don't want to just get by. We want to compete and we want all of our students to succeed. The Premier stated in the House this morning that we need to be competitive. What are you doing to make sure that Toronto—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we're doing investing in is every student in this province, whether that's an elementary student, whether that's a secondary student, to give them the resources they need. That's why 77% of kids in Ontario are graduating from high school, up from 68% when we came into office.

We do have a plan. Our student success strategy puts programs into our high schools. Our literacy and numeracy strategy puts resources into elementary schools, helps teachers change their practice. We've lowered class sizes in those early years. All of those things have led to those successes later on.

The other issue is that the Fraser Institute is not one of the resources and not one of the reference groups that we go to to get information. What we do is, we look at what's going on in our schools, we put the resources where they are needed and then we see the success of our students.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: We can't pick and choose which statistics we want to read. I find it ironic that one minute you're rating your own schools and displaying them on a website, and the next minute you suddenly don't put a stock in school ratings.

It is interesting that schools in low-income neighbourhoods were doing really, really well, but what that says to me is that you are letting students who are just scraping by, who don't fall into that category—they continue to just scrape by.

Minister, what actions will you be taking to ensure that all students are given the opportunity to succeed in Toronto and Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the reasons that we wanted to put the school information finder on our website was exactly what the member opposite is highlighting: that simplistic, overly simple view of organizations like the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute, which take a group of schools and rank them. If you take any number of schools and rank them within a narrow band of achievement, there's going to be the top and there's going to be the bottom. What we wanted to do with the school information finder was to contextualize that information, to give families and the community more information so that they can assess what's happening.

The reality is, we're closing the gap between kids who are achieving and kids who aren't. We've put resources where they're needed so that kids who were having issues, kids who were struggling, are now achieving more. I would think that the member opposite would celebrate the fact that kids who were struggling are doing much better. That's cause for celebration. That's why—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. TICO knew half a year ago about Conquest Vacations's cash flow problems. Its working capital had fallen below prescribed levels. Why didn't this minister warn the people of Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me say this. First of all, I want to thank the member for asking this question. We are very fortunate in this province that we have a travel compensation fund for consumers, and TICO has worked aggressively to actually update consumers and provide them with all the support they can provide.

Let me just outline some of the things they have done. TICO worked immediately to guarantee the return travel of all of the approximately 2,600 customers in destinations. They had about nine planes standing to bring all Ontarians back to Ontario. They have worked with the hotels—27 hotels—to guarantee that the customers are not overcharged. Not only that, they have provided the information on their website. They're also working with the travellers who still have not taken their—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Horse feathers. I had hoped that by giving this minister written notice of my question, it might improve the quality of the response. I can tell you it doesn't work.

Look, TICO knew. TICO is the regulatory agency that's designed to protect consumers. It knew that Conquest Vacations was failing to meet TICO's standards. That means travellers were at risk.

Regardless of what the minister wants to say today, thousands of tourists, kids, honeymooners, have been left stranded, have been extorted for thousands of dollars by Mexican hoteliers and have had the Mexican police bullying them. This government failed to protect those Ontario travellers. Providing compensation after the fact doesn't change the reality for those people stranded in resorts in Mexico.

Why didn't this government warn the people of Ontario that they were at risk if they were purchasing from Conquest? How can the public ever trust them again? How can the public ever trust any travel agency—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you, what is really important right now is to work with the consumers who have faced some inconvenience because Conquest Vacations Inc., after 37 years of operations, decided to voluntarily terminate their operations in Ontario.

TICO has worked very closely with them to bring all the vacationers back to Ontario. They have worked with the hotels. They also previously worked very closely with Conquest Vacations Inc. to make sure that their operations were in order, and they had given them notice to terminate their wholesale contracts if their performance hadn't improved. So they have done everything they could possibly do.

These are ongoing operations. It doesn't matter when you terminate these operations; you're still going to face the same kinds of issues that you're facing today.

ELDER ABUSE

Mr. Mike Colle: A question to the minister responsible for seniors: Minister, "elder abuse" is a phrase that is being heard too often these days. Ontario's seniors population is growing rapidly, and as they age, they're more susceptible to abuse. Many experts report that elder abuse is under-reported because seniors are afraid and ashamed to come forward. Seniors are also afraid to report abuse because they don't want to reveal the identity of their abusers for fear of reprisal. I ask the minister, what program have you put in place to help protect these seniors, day or night, wherever they live in Ontario, from elder abuse?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The dignity and safety of our seniors is something for which we all bear responsibility. Elder abuse, whether it's physical, emotional or financial, cannot be tolerated.

Last week, I was delighted to be in my colleague's riding here in Toronto to launch a province-wide seniors' safety helpline to assist seniors at risk of abuse. This helpline will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it's accessible in 154 languages. That's who we are in this province: a people who speak 154 languages. By making this helpline accessible to seniors at risk in their languages, I think we have moved the bar considerably.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

The creation of a province-wide seniors' safety helpline is an important step, but it's also important that the government has coordinated a plan to fight elder abuse in all its forms. I hope that in this Legislature we would agree that our seniors must be protected from this shameful abuse. Can the minister tell this House what action plan it has in place to prevent elder abuse in Ontario beyond the hotline?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The McGuinty government has supported a number of initiatives to help our seniors live safely. Since the strategy was created, the government has invested over $6 million in combating elder abuse, and over the last three years, the McGuinty government has provided more than $1 million in grants to local elder abuse prevention networks throughout Ontario. In that regard, Ontario is the leader throughout Canada in adapting and promoting this very innovative strategy.

I would just like to address the point that my colleague made in his opening question, and that is the issue of privacy, because elders in this province who are at risk or suffering abuse often don't come forward for fear of their name and reputation being known. Protecting privacy, as well as making it available in many languages, was key to the success of this program, and that has been incorporated in it. It's obviously well received. We had a tremendous press turnout. It's an—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Premier, and it's with regard to northern Ontario. Premier, last year the federal government provided Ontario with $358 million from the community development trust fund intended to help one-industry towns, like most of those in northern Ontario, that are currently suffering. Can you tell me where this money went?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I say to the member that we have been working, certainly, with the industry minister right now with respect to the coordination of the provincial funding and the federal funding. The member will know that, with respect to infrastructure funding, there has been an unprecedented investment over the last five years under this government.

I say to the member, I'm not sure exactly which projects he's referring to. I'm happy to work with the member to ensure that they are pursued on a timely basis. But I would say that we're talking about a situation where the funding, in fact, has been implemented and executed in this province much faster than it has been on the federal level.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. One of the federal government's conditions of the program was to encourage the province to report directly to constituents on the expenditures and outcomes achieved with the funding provided from the community development trust fund. The Premier said he would consult on the best ways to apply and leverage the new funding for maximum benefit for Ontario workers.

Northern Ontario mayors are calling me and they're asking, "Where's the money?" Nobody seems to see any benefit from it. They feel northern Ontario and the forestry sector are being neglected.

If that's not the case, then please tell the members of this Legislature which communities received money, how much did they get, and how much of the $358 million is left.

Hon. Michael Bryant: In Red Lake, millions of dollars invested to do build the road, water, power and sewer infrastructure for a new industrial park; Chelmsford, $2 million for a long-term-care home, 128 beds, 160 jobs created; Sioux Lookout, a $1-million investment, 10 new jobs, retrofitting to retain space into a carpentry and electrical—Dryden, Sudbury, Rainy River, Red Rock, Timmins, Manitoulin Island, Sault Ste. Marie. This government has and will continue to make these investments in northern communities, and I really appreciate the member's question.

ONTARIO ARTISTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Culture. Minister, Ontario's artists have been waiting a very long time for status of the artist legislation. The 2007 status of the artist act was a great disappointment, as you are well aware, and failed to improve the economic status of Ontario's artists. The arts community was told at the time that this legislation was just a first step; more would follow.

Can the minister explain what further steps have been taken to keep that promise to Ontario's artists?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: While the government did indeed pass the status of the artist legislation in the last mandate, the government has been very active and involved in the cultural sector and in supporting artists. This government values the important contributions of Ontario's 57,000 professional actors. The Ministry of Culture champions a number of things. Since 2003, the McGuinty government has increased funding to the Ontario Arts Council by $15 million, and that is a 140% increase to the Ontario Arts Council. The budget that we are proposing has $100 million annually in additional tax relief and $30 million in investments to support entertainment and creative industries.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, it's always a bad indicator when you completely sidestep the question. As you know, Ontario's artists earn, on average, 37% less than the Ontario workforce in general. In the report of October 2006, the status of the artist subcommittee recommended, "That the Ministry of Culture establish a time-limited process where parties with a direct interest in any mandatory collective bargaining regime are invited to meet with representatives of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Labour to work toward consensus." You've talked about funding.

There was a promise made about status-of-the-artist legislation. There was a recommendation made about a process that you could put in place. Why haven't you done it and what are you waiting for?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'm not sidestepping the honourable member's question. Yes, the legislation was passed; yes, it is one of a number of initiatives. I, like many members here in the House, look forward to meeting again with the members of ACTRA during today's meeting session, but I think we also need to recognize that we have been delivering skills seminars to artists across Ontario in partnership with the Ministry of Small Business.

We've been helping to train the next generation of digital media designers at the Ontario College of Art and Design, we've been helping to create a digital new media institute at the University of Waterloo, and since I came into this wonderful job I had the great opportunity to meet with the Canadian Film Centre people, approach my government and see this government under this Premier put $2.5 million into enhancing that exceptional facility that indeed has much to do with continuing education and assistance to the artists. I think we might—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

MOOSE TAGS

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as you know, hunting is an activity enjoyed by many Ontarians and many of my constituents. Moose in particular are icons of Ontario's ecosystem and contribute substantial social, economic and ecological benefits to the people of Ontario. They also hold significant value for aboriginal peoples. They are highly sought-after game animals, a means of subsistence and are very popular for viewing and important for tourism. This widespread value has resulted in moose being highly coveted by hunters and being one of Ontario's most intensively managed species.

I am aware that the ministry has been undertaking a review of Ontario's moose management and tag draw system. Can the minister share with the House what level of response has been received during public consultations and whether the input received will actually be implemented in the management policy?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'd like to thank the member for his question, for indeed this is a very significant part of the economy in Ontario. We have approximately 100,000 moose and unfortunately we have about 100,000 hunters as well. We have over 54 wildlife units and unfortunately the moose are not similar in each unit.

What we did is we contacted over 500 hunters in over 20 locations right across Ontario, and we've received over 1,600 responses. This is going to be in two phases to ensure that we'll manage to have sufficient tags and to listen to what the hunters have to say as we put the policy in place. The policy has been in place for a number of years and it needed revision, and we also need to ensure that we have a sustainable moose population. There have been some challenges with regard to the moose population, especially in northwestern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: The minister mentions the review of the tag draw system. I know that this is of particular importance to many of my constituents, as I've received a number of complaints over my 20 years here from people who have been waiting years to receive a moose tag. Public consultation is a very important part of the review but I'm wondering how people have been made aware of these sessions and where they are being held so that they can in fact have the opportunity for input. Particularly in the north, there are many great distances between towns.

Minister, can you tell us how many sessions are being conducted and explain how your ministry is making sure they are accessible to all Ontarians?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to say that there's a total of 27 communities and we've recently added two more at Kenora and Kapuskasing. We've had over 3,500 moose hunters who have attended these 25 different sessions, so we've issued local news releases; we've gone onto our website; we have multiple sessions within municipalities and local media; we give information about the time, the date and the location; and finally, we're also working with the associations. We have NOSA in the north, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters across Ontario.

What we're trying to do is reach out and get as much information as possible. They said that there hasn't been a review of the moose tag allocation for a number of years. As the member has indicated, there have been significant challenges, so what we're trying to do is to get it right. Given the time, over two years, we will in fact put out a new moose tag allocation that reflects the input that we receive from the hunters across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN CORPS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I rise in the Legislature today to ask all to join me in celebrating the Canadian Corps Association's 75th anniversary of service to veterans and their families.

In 1934, a reunion of World War I veterans was held in Toronto, where it was decided to perpetuate the spirit of the Canadian Corps' front-line soldiers, and they formed an organization dedicated to promote the welfare of veterans and their dependents. They called the newly formed organization the Canadian Corps Association.

Over the years, the tasks of the Canadian Corps have been many and varied. They include the work obtaining assistance for veterans who, through circumstances attributed to their service during World War I, found themselves in need of hospitalization, pensions and so forth. After World War II, their activities were greatly increased, assisting in recruiting as well as advocating for adequate re-establishment benefits and preparing the World War II veterans for rehabilitation back into civilian life.

The 75th anniversary of Canadian Corps Association convention, from April 24 to 26, will be hosted by Unit 42 in Memorial Park in my riding of Oshawa. The convention will include a statue unveiling and a memorial service. The theme is, "Serving veterans and their dependents since 1934."

I'd like to thank all the wonderful members of this organization for the countless hours they have dedicated to supporting our veterans. The inscription on the statue says it best:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

BRAMPTON SPELLING BEE

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I rise today to congratulate the children who participated last Saturday in the Brampton spelling bee, which was held at Shoppers World Brampton. This annual event promotes education and self-confidence in these young people. I had the privilege in the past year of seeing these people get up in front of hundreds of people and spell difficult and complex words.

This spelling bee is more than just a competition. This event encourages children of all ages to thrive and learn words. This is not done by just memorizing a dictionary. This is accomplished by reading, writing, researching and asking questions. I strongly support a cause that makes education a priority. These children spend months studying for this occasion. They deserve recognition and encouragement from all of us.

This event could not be held without the many volunteers who give their time to make sure that these children have a platform to express their knowledge. I wish to acknowledge everyone who worked so hard to make sure this event was so successful. I look forward to attending next year's event.

PEMBROKE LUMBER KINGS

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Pembroke Lumber Kings are champions once again. Last Thursday evening, the Lumber Kings defeated the Nepean Raiders in a 3-2 overtime thriller. The win earned Pembroke its third straight central junior title and a trip to the Fred Page Cup in Moncton, New Brunswick, where they will compete for a shot at the national championship.

The game was highlighted by the stellar performance of Kings' goaltender Eric Levine. Levine, the league's best this season, stood on his head in a remarkable 54 save effort, 14 of them in overtime, before Damian Cross's goal clinched it for the home team.

The Central Junior Hockey League could not have a better representative than our Pembroke Lumber Kings. We have the best fans anywhere. No other team draws crowds like the Lumber Kings. The people love their team and that support is a big part of their success.

The Kings are a first-class organization that has always shown its pride and gratitude to the good folks of hockey town.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the city of Pembroke, coach and manager Sheldon Keefe, the players and every member of the team's organization for bringing the Bogart Cup to Pembroke once again.

Let me also wish them the very best at the Fred Page Cup. The city, indeed the entire valley, is behind them. Go, Kings, go.

WESTON COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I am very proud to speak today about a group of students from a high school in my riding who made the front page of the Toronto Star but, through their ambition, want to make it all the way to the White House.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: The White House?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Yes, the White House, Maria.

The video, titled "W2W," for "Weston to the White House," is as much a reflection of the hope that President Obama has instilled across the world as it is an indication of how the collective initiative of a few can reach the households of many, showing that youth have an active role to play in matters political. The footage also conveys a sense of community involvement that challenged neighbourhoods need more than ever.

I would like to congratulate the class for their achievement and for the message of optimism they have expressed through their work. In this vein, I would encourage other young girls and boys to showcase their creative faculties to their communities.

I would like to invite all members of this Legislature to view the video from the Weston Collegiate students by logging on to www.pricework.weebly.com.

RED BARN THEATRE

Mrs. Julia Munro: On Saturday night, the town of Georgina lost its most cherished cultural centre. The Red Barn Theatre, after 59 years of performances, burned to the ground.

As Canada's longest-running summer theatre, the Red Barn has been a venue for many of Canada's greatest actors, producers and directors.

The Lake Simcoe Arts Foundation operates the theatre, which sits on land owned by the Sibbald family, the owners of The Briars resort. It is local volunteers who do the fundraising, maintain the theatre and grounds, and do so many other tasks.

Despite the fire, the theatre company is determined to go on. It is committed to doing its best, as their board president, Bob Smith, said, "to put on all or at least the majority" of their 60th annual season.

Ideas are already coming forward to keep the theatre alive, and I share the hope that it will continue. I have attended performances at the Red Barn Theatre every year for the past 36 years, and I can certainly attest to the quality of its productions.

I urge the government to provide whatever assistance it can to rebuild this cultural jewel.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: Another week in Ontario, with more and more forest sector jobs at risk, more and more forest sector jobs disappearing, communities watching the base of their economy being crippled. What is the response of the McGuinty Liberals? There is no response.

AbitibiBowater forced to file for financial restructuring: The government of Quebec immediately steps up and says that they're prepared to guarantee loans of $100 million to help with that restructuring, to sustain jobs in that province.

What are we seeing from the McGuinty government? The McGuinty government has announced and reannounced its forest sector investment plan, but after four years there is still $92 million that was announced that has never been disbursed, never been used. Meanwhile, literally 4,000 jobs are at risk. When is the McGuinty government going to respond?

Another example: Recently, the most modern paper mill in Ontario, in Dryden, which had over $2.5 billion of new investment in the last 15 years, closed. It produced office paper like this. Where will the office paper be produced now? In North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Wisconsin, but not in Ontario.

CITY OF CORNWALL

Mr. Jim Brownell: My riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has always been a hotbed of creative talent, ranging from authors like Maggie Wheeler to actors like Ryan Gosling. Among these talented artists are two up-and-coming filmmakers, John Earle and Frank Burelle. Under their company, FishRizzo productions, John and Frank have already brought us two outstanding films: Submerged and Treasures of the Lost Villages. They are now set to bring us their third film, 86400; 86400 refers to the number of seconds in a 24-hour period.

With this film, John and Frank and their colleague Ron Piquette spent 24 hours continuously filming the city of Cornwall, speaking to its citizens from all walks of life, trying to capture the pulse of the city. They even spent time at my constituency office in Cornwall.

Cornwall has endured its share of hardships in the past but has been blessed with some great moments as well. This June, for example, the community will celebrate the 225th anniversary of its founding. The ability to endure, to find the positives and build on them, is a hallmark of the city of Cornwall and a tribute to its people. 86400 will be premiering at 7 p.m. on April 29 at the Galaxy cinema in Cornwall, and I would encourage anyone interested in learning about the film to visit www.86400themovie.com. I look forward to this film, as I so enjoyed Submerged and Treasures from the Lost Villages.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I rise in the House to announce the strides my city of London is making to better their community.

Just recently, I joined Minister Bentley for his annual Think Global Act Local event at White Oaks Mall. It's a simple idea geared towards changing the environment. The idea was to make green energy products, services and education available to everyone. It was a market geared towards everyday citizens who are concerned about their impact on the environment, and the event provided all necessary means for them to help make a difference.

The event was successful. Several thousand people actively engaged in it, and the key speakers expressed their gratitude to us as representatives of the government. We were pleased to see many people learning about different ways to make their community greener. Mr. Bentley's Greenfoot Award was given to several community leaders who were recognized for "taking charge" by making a great difference in the community.

I would like to extend my thanks to Minister Bentley's office, especially to Ashley Conyngham, for organizing such a successful event. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to do that.

CHANTAL BERTRAND

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: It is with much appreciation and thanks that I rise to congratulate Chantal Bertrand, a teacher and campus coordinator at le Centre d'éducation et de formation de l'Est ontarien in Hawkesbury.

Chantal and all 20 recipients of the Premier's Award for Teaching Excellence will be recognized at a special event during Education Week.

Félicitations à Chantal. Au nom des étudiants et étudiantes du Centre d'éducation et de formation de l'Est ontarien à Hawkesbury, un grand merci.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les coroners.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business, such that Mrs. Van Bommel assumes ballot item number 12 and Mr. Qaadri assumes ballot item number 74.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

(VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE ET

HARCÈLEMENT AU TRAVAIL)

Mr. Fonseca moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters / Projet de loi 168, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en ce qui concerne la violence et le harcèlement au travail et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister for a short statement?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd ask that I make my statement during ministerial statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Just before I begin, I would like to welcome the following individuals who have travelled to Queen's Park today to witness the introduction of the bill. These individuals are as follows: the Lori Dupont family—Barbara Dupont, Christine Dupont and Brad Dupont; the Theresa Vince family—Jim Vince, Catherine Kedziora, Kim Kedziora; and Michelle Schryer. I thank them, and I also thank the ministry staff who have worked so hard on this legislation—Alison Smyth, Brian Hanulik, Yvette Shirtliff, Kathleen Therriault and Maxime Cappeliez—who are also with us in the members' gallery.

I rise today to ask my colleagues to stand with me in taking action against violence and harassment in the workplace. The bill I'm introducing today would, if passed, clarify for employers and employees their responsibilities and rights to prevent and respond to workplace violence and harassment.

Under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act, all employers are required to take every reasonable precaution to protect the health and safety of their workers in the workplace—including violence. After consulting with employers, labour, and women's groups, we recognized that the protections and responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act could be clarified so workers and employers know what is expected.

Today, I am proud to introduce amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, amendments that would help strengthen and provide clarification to the existing act. The proposed amendments, if passed, would require:

—employers to prepare a workplace harassment policy and develop and maintain a program to implement that policy;

—the addition of a definition of "workplace violence" to the act itself;

—employers to understand their responsibilities, and workers their rights, in preventing workplace violence;

—a provision for workers so that they may remove themselves from harmful situations if they have reason to believe that they are at risk of imminent danger due to violence in the workplace; and

—require employers to take reasonable precautions to protect an employee from domestic violence in the workplace.

Our obligation is to deal with workplace violence, not just from another worker, but from anyone who enters the workplace.

The act, as it is now, does provide that employers have a general duty to keep their workplaces safe. These proposed amendments, however, will help strengthen existing provisions under the act and provide clarification to current regulations. We want workplaces to create an environment that says to each and every worker, "Violence is unacceptable in this workplace, and violence will be dealt with."

The proposed amendments would be performance-based, providing clear direction about what is required while allowing employers the flexibility to develop policies and programs that meet the needs and risk levels of their workplaces. Preventing injuries and absences translates into higher worker morale, increased productivity, reduced lost-time injuries and reduced workplace insurance premium costs. The government will continue to work with our health and safety partners to create easy-to-follow guidelines, checklists and templates to help employers comply with the proposed amendments.

I ask the members of this Legislature to stand with me in passing these amendments and to stand with me against workplace violence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

Mr. Robert Bailey: On behalf of the official opposition, it is my pleasure to rise and offer some comments on this bill today.

First off, I would like to say that it's about time. Our colleague the member from Durham has been pushing this government for months to act on the recommendations put forward from the Lori Dupont inquiry. Lori Dupont was a nurse who was murdered in 2005 by a fellow employee who worked at the same hospital. Eventually, the government did call an inquest into this tragedy, and the inquest reported in 2007. That was 2007; it is now April 2009.

To the point of this bill, we notice that there is nothing in the amendments that outlines punishments. The bill requires employers to develop policies with respect to workplace violence and to develop and maintain programs to implement them. Employers will have to assess the risk of workplace violence, and it will require employers who are aware that violence may occur in the workplace to take every precaution to protect a worker who is at risk of injury. It will also specify existing duties on employers and supervisors to provide that information and advise workers and to include professional information about a risk of workplace violence from a person.

This will be welcomed by teachers and education assistants, who will now have to be told if a student has a history of violence. Workers will now also have the right to refuse work if that worker has reason to believe that workplace violence is likely to endanger him or her.

We on this side of the House would have liked to have seen clearly-laid-out penalties for not living up to this act, and that seems to be missing. It seems like this is a process that may or may not protect anyone, and that is shameful.

I would also like to say that on this side of the House, we feel that violence is unacceptable in any workplace and that violence should be dealt with. I hope that when we study the amendments, the proposed amendments will provide clear direction about what is required while allowing those employers the flexibility to develop policies and programs that meet the needs and risk levels of those workplaces.

Under the guise of making people safer, the government is also proposing regulatory changes that will allow them to pass regulations contained in any policy required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. These will be done behind closed doors with no public input. Our party will have a real problem with that.

But we will be looking for changes once this bill gets to the committee. I commend the minister on his announcement today and look forward to working with him and the government to make this a better bill.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to first of all acknowledge the people who have come today, the families of victims of the worst kind of workplace violence that we've seen in the province of Ontario. It's great that they are here. It's probably a very painful time for them but certainly a time when they would like to see some positive changes occur in terms of the situation of workplace violence and harassment in the province.

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed with the minister's bill as it's before me today. The minister claims that this is a bill that's going to be the be-all and end-all in terms of ending violence and harassment in the workplace, and I don't believe that that is the case. I know that Ontario has never had legislation that was specifically related to violence and harassment in the workplace. However, this government had an opportunity to put in place the toughest, the most comprehensive legislation on workplace violence and harassment, and they have failed to do so in this bill.

Certainly it's a baby step, but in the province of Ontario, when people are being harassed at work, when people are being bullied at work, when we know that's happening day in and day out, when domestic violence spills into the workplace, when workplaces are poisoned because of the kinds of behaviours that are occurring there, we get this bill that is not, I submit, going to help many hundreds and thousands of workers in this province deal with that harassment and violence.

In the recommendations that have come forward by this minister—I think he needs to take a look at legislation that has been in this Legislature for many years now, legislation that was put together in consultation with Ontario nurses' unions, with public sector workers' unions and with private sector workers' unions; legislation that looks at the recommendations coming out of the inquests of Theresa Vince and Lori Dupont but that also looks at what happened with SARS and talks about the precautionary principle that needs to be put in place in workplaces in this province, so that we are anticipating the potential for violence, for harassment, for bullying; so that we are not waiting until workers have to deal with these incidents where their very lives are put at risk because we did not foresee circumstances brewing in the workplace that will likely end up creating a situation where someone is going to be hurt, either physically or mentally.

Unfortunately, the government has not taken the opportunity to put that strong, effective kind of legislation in place. Instead, they've got a piece of legislation here that sets out significant obligations to the employer around development of policies, and yet there is no requirement that the government ensure that not only are the policies up to snuff but that they are being implemented and followed up upon. In fact, it leaves employers with the responsibility to ensure that their internal processes are helping to address violence and harassment in the workplace. That is not good enough.

That is not good enough and that is not what the workers of this province need. The workers of this province need strong legislation that is upheld by their government. That's what they need, and unfortunately, they are not getting that in this bill.

What they could get it in is in Bill 29, legislation that I brought forward several months ago—in fact, well over a year ago. That includes strong powers of investigation for designated Ministry of Labour staff. It exercises the precautionary principle to the fullest. It covers all workers, but not only workers; any other person within the workplace is covered in Bill 29: suppliers, contractors and other personnel who might be entering the workplace. They are also responsible; they have to be held to account when it comes to harassment and bullying in the workplace. This legislation doesn't do nearly enough.

I just wanted to talk briefly about one of the specific recommendations in the Lori Dupont case—a couple of them. Recommendation 49: "It is recommended there be a review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to examine the feasibility of including domestic violence"—and I know the minister will say that it's in here. But it says, "Specifically, the review should consider whether safety from emotional or psychological harm, rather than merely physical harm, ought to be part of the mandate of the ministry. In this regard, the review should be directed to include an examination of the legislation and policies."

I would submit that you had failed in that regard, Minister. It's a sad day in the province of Ontario when you didn't do everything that could have been done to end violence in the workplace.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents in Dufferin-Caledon do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax (HST) that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax ... will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario" families.

I'm pleased to affix my name to it and give it to page Myriam.

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have a petition, and I want to thank the workers of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers as well as the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for providing it for me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workplace harassment (physical/psychological) and violence are linked to the mental and physical ill-health and safety of workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas harassment and violence need to be defined as violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act so that it is dealt with as quickly and earnestly by employers as other health and safety issues; and

"Whereas employers will have a legal avenue and/or a legal obligation to deal with workplace harassment and violence in all its forms, including psychological harassment; and

"Whereas harassment poisons a workplace, taking many forms—verbal/physical abuse, sabotage, intimidation, bullying, sexism and racism, and should not be tolerated; and

"Whereas harassment in any form harms a target's physical and mental health, esteem and productivity, and contributes to trauma and stress on the job; and

"Whereas Bill 29 would make it the law to protect workers from workplace harassment by giving workers the right to refuse to work after harassment has occurred, require an investigation of allegations of workplace-related harassment and oblige employers to take steps to prevent further occurrences of workplace-related harassment;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to treat workplace harassment and violence as a serious health and safety issue by passing MPP Andrea Horwath's Bill 29, which would bring workplace harassment and violence under the scope of the Occupational Health and Safety Act."

I agree with this petition and sign my name to it, sending it to the table with Nicola.

GARDE D'ENFANTS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I have a petition that I received from a constituent of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Nous, citoyens de la province de l'Ontario, méritons et avons le droit de demander des modifications à la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance, de façon à faire valoir l'importance des relations qu'ont les enfants avec leurs père et mère, ainsi qu'avec leurs grands-parents, comme le prévoit le projet de loi 33, 2008, présenté par le député provincial Kim Craitor.

« Attendu que le paragraphe 20(2.1) de la Loi exige que les père et mère et autres personnes qui ont la garde d'enfants ne doivent pas faire déraisonnablement obstacle aux relations personnelles qui existent entre les enfants et leurs grands-parents;

« Attendu que le paragraphe 24(2) de la Loi énumère les questions dont le tribunal doit tenir compte pour établir l'intérêt véritable d'un enfant. Le projet de loi modifie ce paragraphe de façon à inclure une mention expresse de l'importance du maintien des liens affectifs qui existent entre enfants et grands-parents;...

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario adoptent le projet de loi 33, 2008, qui modifie la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance, de façon à faire valoir l'importance des relations qu'ont les enfants avec leurs père et mère ainsi qu'avec leurs grands-parents. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

SALES TAX

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the auto industry in Ontario and throughout North America is experiencing a major restructuring; and

"Whereas the current economic crisis is affecting the auto manufacturers and the front-line dealerships throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas many potential automobile purchasers are having difficulty accessing credit even at current prices; and

"Whereas a three-month tax holiday of the GST and the PST on the purchase of new and used cars and trucks would stimulate auto sales;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the provincial and federal governments to implement a three-month tax holiday in order to support the auto sector."

I affix my name in full support.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: This petition is regarding property tax assessments.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are angry over the volatility of the MPAC tax assessment system, the near impossibility to predict one's assessment or to understand how it is arrived at, the patent unfairness of assessments and that the current system leaves many homeowners worried they may be forced to sell their homes; and

"Whereas changes are needed that will make Ontario's property tax system stable, understandable, fair and sensitive to homeowners; and

"Whereas property assessments in Parkdale—High Park have risen between 28% and 45% between 2005 and 2008;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: Support the 'freeze till sale' plan to bring fairness to Ontario's property tax system so that new assessments happen only at the time of sale and when a building permit is obtained for renovations totalling more than $40,000."

I couldn't agree more. I affix my signature, and I'm giving it to Lindsay to deliver.

LUPUS

Mr. Bob Delaney: I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of my seatmate, the hard-working member from Niagara Falls. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and comes through the Lupus Foundation of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas systemic lupus erythematosus is under-recognized as a global health problem by the public, health professionals and governments, driving the need for greater awareness; and

"Whereas medical research on lupus and efforts to develop safer and more effective therapies for the disease are underfunded in comparison with diseases of comparable magnitude and severity; and

"Whereas no new safe and effective drugs for lupus have been introduced in more than 40 years. Current drugs for lupus are very toxic and can cause other life-threatening health problems that can be worse than the primary disease;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to assist financially with media campaigns to bring about knowledge of systemic lupus erythematosus and the signs and symptoms of this disease to all citizens of Ontario.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide funding for research currently being undertaken in lupus clinics throughout Ontario."

On behalf of the member for Niagara Falls, I'm pleased to sign this petition and ask Kenzie to carry it for me.

TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents in Simcoe North do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax (HST) that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased to support my constituents.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Mike Colle: A petition on behalf of our vulnerable caregivers:

"Whereas a number of ... caregiver recruitment agencies have exploited vulnerable foreign workers; and

"Whereas ... "caregivers "are subject to illegal fees and abuse at the hands of some of these unscrupulous recruiters; and

"Whereas the federal government in Ottawa has failed to protect ... " caregivers "from these abuses; and

"Whereas, in Ontario, the former Conservative government deregulated and eliminated protection for ... caregivers; and

"Whereas a great number of ... caregivers perform outstanding and difficult tasks on a daily basis in their work, with limited protection;

"We, the undersigned, support MPP Mike Colle's bill, the Caregiver and Foreign Worker Recruitment and Protection Act, 2009, and urge its speedy passage into law."

I support the caregivers, and I support this petition. I affix my name to it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I've received more petitions to do with the Burk's Falls and District Health Centre, and they read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Burk's Falls and District Health Centre provides vital health services for residents of Burk's Falls and the Almaguin Highlands of all ages, as well as seasonal residents and tourists; and

"Whereas the health centre helps to reduce demand on the Huntsville hospital emergency room; and

"Whereas the operating budget for Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare is insufficient to meet the growing demand for service in the communities of Muskoka—East Parry Sound; and

"Whereas budget pressures could jeopardize continued operation of the Burk's Falls health centre;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty government and Minister of Health provide adequate increases in the operating budget of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare to maintain current health services, including those provided by the Burk's Falls health centre."

I support this petition and give it to page Cooper.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr. Mike Colle: A petition from the students at the Yorkdale Adult Learning Centre.

"Whereas there are a growing number of drive-by shootings and gun crimes in our communities;

"Whereas only police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are allowed to possess handguns;

"Whereas a growing number of illegal handguns are transported, smuggled and being found in cars driven in our communities;

"Whereas impounding cars and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing illegal guns on the spot by the police will make our communities safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, a bill ... entitled the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law so that we can reduce the number of drive-by shootings and gun crimes in our communities."

I support the students at Yorkdale, and I support the security guard who got shot last Thursday at Yorkdale.

TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents in Simcoe North do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased to sign it and give it to Michael to present at the table.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition from a number of constituents from my riding, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario's cemeteries are an important part of our cultural heritage, and Ontario's inactive cemeteries are constantly at risk of closure and removal; and

"Ontario's cemeteries are an irreplaceable part of the province's cultural heritage;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government must pass Bill 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the table.

TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have a very important petition; I've had hundreds of them signed this weekend.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents in Simcoe North do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians in particular;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased once again to sign it, on behalf of my constituents, and give it to Cameron to present at the table.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the people of Ontario, deserve and have the right to request an amendment to the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents.

"Whereas subsection 20(2.1) requires parents and others with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relationships between children and their grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2) contains a list of matters that a court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. The bill amends that subsection to include a specific reference to the importance of maintaining emotional ties between children and grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.1) requires a court that is considering custody of or access to a child to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.2) requires a court that is considering custody of a child to take into consideration each applicant's willingness to facilitate as much contact between the child and each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, as above, to emphasize the importance of children's relationships between their parents and grandparents."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 9, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 162, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I want to say at the outset to people who might be listening or who are in the galleries today that Bill 162 is a conglomeration or an omnibus bill of 31 different pieces of legislation.

Surprisingly enough, the bill—Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures—doesn't include some of the major thrusts and some of the major topics which people around Ontario are talking about in terms of the budget which was introduced by the finance minister in March. Bill 162 does not include the legislation dealing with the harmonization of the federal and provincial sales tax. Bill 162 does not deal with corporation tax relief, nor does it deal with individual tax relief in terms of their income taxes. So this bill, in large part, deals with a lot of housekeeping matters, but it also deals with a few very important matters which I will be alluding to as I go through my speech.

I would, at the outset, like to thank officials from the Ministry of Finance for briefing myself and members of the staff for the Progressive Conservative Party. I was overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up at the briefing. There were three of us on one side of the table and, without a bit of exaggeration, there were 40 on the other side of the table. That is, in part, due to the fact that there were 31 different acts amended here in this legislation, and each act required an official or two to explain what that particular act meant.

I've had the opportunity to review the remarks of some of the other members of the Legislature with regard to Bill 162 prior to making my remarks today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus. I noted that Mr. Prue from the New Democratic Party limited his debate and remarks to Bill 162. He talked about the Ontario Securities Commission. He also talked about the pension insurance fund, and he had some comments with regard to that. I did note that the three Liberal members who have talked on this bill—Mr. Arthurs, Mr. Mauro and Mr.

Colle—talked little about Bill 162 but talked about general budgetary matters and how good the government was with regard to those matters. This points to the observation that a bill like this can be glossed over and a lot of the content of the bill would never be brought to light and therefore not evoke the proper public debate with regard to some of the content in this particular act.

I did note from Mr. Prue's remarks that he said, and I agree with him, that much of the bill deals with very technical matters. When you get into taxation and when you get into insurance funds and those kinds of things, many questions pop into mind. It would be my hope, at the outset, that the government would see fit to sever two parts of the bill and let the other 29 stand and that we debate those particular matters.

The two matters which I would like severed out of the bill relate to the interim allocation of some $46 billion more for the government to spend out of the consolidated revenue fund, as well as the matters dealing with the pension insurance fund, because I think the pension insurance fund requires a focused debate by people in Ontario and we should not just deal with one very small matter with regard to this very important topic and leave the rest to come to light sometime in the future.

I think this is a great opportunity for all members of the Legislature and the public to seriously consider true pension reform, not only dealing with the insurance but also dealing with fully funded pensions and how all of that occurs. The government, as members know, have in their possession a very important study which they commissioned and is now in their hands and was delivered to them in November of last year. They claim that they are studying it.

What better opportunity would it be than to refer that particular report to something like a select committee of the Legislature where the members of the Legislature who are interested in this could in fact put forward the politics of reforming our pension reform system.

I can remember a long time ago, in the late 1970s, we had a select committee on insurance. That committee sat together for four years of the parliamentary term and went through the insurance schemes that were there. We talked about it, and we came up with a unanimous report for reform. I think it's time that we looked at that as well.

I'm going to talk about a lot of the bill. I want to talk about eight different sections of the bill which deal with eight different acts. Some of the acts, I fully support the changes contained in them.

One of the problems we in the opposition have with a bill like this is, with 31 acts, there's probably one or two that we would oppose, and they're very, very important ones that we want to oppose as well. If these acts were read separately and were presented separately, we would support probably 28 or 29 of the 31 because they are basically housekeeping amendments, and there's really a need to keep the laws up to date with the changing environments that occur.

However there are two, maybe three, that we would oppose. There are some that we would like to make very, very minor amendments to in order to provide more accountability. But we've heard all too often in this House that when we vote against Bill 162, we will have the finance minister stand up day after day and say, "You voted against this," "You voted against that," which is patently false. In fact our party, and I know the New Democratic Party as well, would support parts of those particular bills.

Interjection.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: As well, I just heard one of the Liberal backbenchers say, "You were here when omnibus bills"—yes, and I was here when the Liberals in opposition stood up and said, "We don't want any omnibus bills." I don't mind an omnibus bill dealing with small, minor, technical amendments.

When I was the House leader, actually what I did with omnibus bills is I went to the opposition and said, "Do you object to any of the sections or the acts that are contained in this?" I took those sections out of the act in order to allow the omnibus bill to go through with very little debate. So I did it. I did it with consultation. You can ask your finance minister, who was then the Liberal House leader. That was the method that we went through. Of course, now there is a different attitude towards this place.

At any rate, I wanted to first talk about the Commodity Futures Act, which is

schedule 6 of the bill. I'm commenting on this because my good friend Mr. Prue bought this to light in his speech that he brought forward. I do so because he asked about the fact that this particular change to the act gives the Ontario Securities Commission the right to make specific orders that last for 10 days, or they would last for 30 days if it had the approval of the Minister of Finance. He was concerned about that, asking about the particular dates.

I don't have any problem with that particular act or those particular powers given to the securities commissioner or the finance minister because I think there is a need, which has been proven in the latest financial breakdown of our securities system, for immediate action in certain circumstances. Fortunately, there is a time limit on those particular acts: 10 days in the case of the Ontario Securities Commission, and 30 days in the case of the Minister of Finance.

But the important point that Mr. Prue was making was—he had some questions about this: Who does he ask about this? How do we include that in the legislative debate? He called for, and I agree with him, some very serious committee hearings on the various different bills contained herein.

The first thing I want to say is that I support, we support, the changes to the Commodity Futures Act contained in this bill.

Next, I'd like to talk about the Financial Administration Act, which is included in

schedule 12 of the bill. This particular amendment to the act allows the government to shove yet more immediate costs off into the future, to be amortized into the future. What we have seen from this government over the period of time that they have been in power is a huge increase in our long-term debt. They have taken the long-term debt from $130 billion, and it is now projected to go over $200 billion.

They've been able to do that because they changed the accounting system in 2005, and therefore they were given basically carte blanche in dealing with the construction of schools and hospitals across our province. They've been able to shove that off as an expense on their balance sheet or on their profit-and-loss statement each year and put it into a long-term amortization, as we would with a mortgage.

My concern over this, once you give this government the right to spend future dollars for future governments by saying, "You don't have to pay for that hospital this year, but you can pay for it over 40 years," is that they continue to do this recklessly, creating more and more debt for our kids and our grandkids. That's what this government has got itself into. This particular

section of the bill,

schedule 12, on the Financial Administration Act, allows them to exacerbate that. I have some difficulty with that, and I wanted to bring to light the fact that once you give this present government carte blanche in terms of spending money, they will spend it. Our party has called for them, in the budget, to bring new accountability mechanisms to the Legislature to deal with their stimulus package.

We brought forward a motion to say, "We need more accountability with regard to the stimulus package which you have outlined in your budget," which I believe is about $32 billion over the next two years—money which they don't have; money which they are going to borrow. We want them to show us where the money is being spent, who got the contract, how many jobs it created and how many long-term jobs it created. We think that all of those kinds of matters should be part of the accountability mechanism in their stimulus package.

To date, we've only heard that what they're going to do is spend the money. They've created an excuse for them to spend $32 billion more than they would have without additional accountability mechanisms. Oddly enough, there is a debate in the federal House of Commons over this very matter, dealing with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget. Oddly enough, the stimulus package which the Liberals threatened to close down the government on was a stimulus package of $3 billion. They wanted more accountability mechanisms; the federal Liberals wanted more accountability mechanisms.

All I say is, if you're dealing with $32 billion in a stimulus package, as we are here, we should have 10 times more reasons to have additional accountability mechanisms to deal with this particular unusual thrust of spending. You couldn't give a worse bunch of incompetent managers the green light to go and spend $32 billion than these people here. With regard to the Financial Administration Act and giving the government even more tools to spend more money, to not be immediately accountable to it I think is bad.

The next particular act that I wanted to talk about was

schedule 28, which I agree with.

Schedule 28 is part of the Taxation Act. What this particular

section of the act deals with are children which are in the custody of children's aid societies across the province of the Ontario. This particular

section gives these children the Ontario child benefit, to be paid to the children's aid society on behalf of the child. It will allow our children's aid societies to benefit kids that are under their direct care, in their own care, in their own premises, and it will also allow them to provide benefits to children, up to $1,100 a year, in foster homes. I think it's a good section, which will allow these kids an additional opportunity to thrive and to perhaps have some benefits that all of the other children in the province might have.

The one part that was not answered when I went into the briefing with the finance ministry was the accountability for this. In other words, does little Johnny who is a foster child with the Smiths get $1,100? Or is it up to the allocation of the children's aid society whether he receives $1,100 or $2,400 worth of benefits or $30 worth of benefits? It was made clear to me that there are no accountability mechanisms to ensure that someone is watching over, that the money is fairly distributed amongst all of the children who are in that children's aid society's care.

So I would ask for some amendments to introduce some kind of accountability mechanisms from the children's aid society to show how this money was being spent and that it wasn't being spent all on one child, that there was some fair distribution amongst all of the children. I don't think it has to be $1,100 for each child, but I think there should be some measure of fairness between all of the children, as would be the case if they weren't in the care of the children's aid society; they would all be entitled to $1,100, as determined by their parents.

I also want to indicate our support for changes to the Tobacco Tax Act in

schedule 30. In

schedule 30, there is a change which would restrict very much the possession of unmarked cigarettes. Under the current act, a person can have in his possession up to 200 unmarked cigarettes without contravening the act, as long as the person doesn't possess the cigarettes for purpose of sale. This particular act prohibits the possession of any number of unmarked cigarettes for any purpose unless authorized by the act.

I want to say that we know, particularly those members of the public accounts committee, of the serious problem that we have with contraband cigarettes being sold across the province. In fact, in the last Auditor General's report, which came out in early December of last year, the Auditor General estimated that we were losing over $500 million a year in tobacco tax revenues. Not only is there a loss in a tremendous revenue source, but every illegal cigarette encourages young people to smoke.

A carton of cigarettes sells for $60 or $70—I don't know what they sell for, but it's somewhere in that neighbourhood; the illegal cigarettes sell for $12 or $15. We all know, and I know, that the cheaper the cigarettes are, the more likely it is that young people will take up the habit. So we support that, but we also call on the government to start enforcing the laws that are already there and cracking down on the people who are manufacturing, transporting, and selling unmarked cigarettes.

Our public accounts committee has brought forward a report on this illegal sale of cigarettes, and there are some very practical recommendations in there to address this problem.

One of the major problems we have is the problem of jurisdiction. If an RCMP officer stops a truck on the 401, they can lay charges under federal laws. They can actually take away the truck and the contraband in it. However, if an OPP officer stops a truck on the 401, they can't do anything save and except hold the car in place until they get permission from the Ministry of Revenue to take control of the cigarettes. They can't take the truck away from the particular individual.

The committee was astounded to find that an OPP officer can't impound the illegal cigarettes without the permission of a member of the special investigations branch of the Ministry of Revenue. The problem is, the OPP don't find these people between 8 and 5, Monday to Friday. They find these people at 3 o'clock in the morning on the 401, and it's very hard to find a special investigations officer at that time, being that they are all located in Oshawa and a lot of these trucks are found around Cornwall and the 401.

For God's sake, it requires a little bit of brainpower to start delegating power to change the legislation in that part and allow the OPP to impound the cigarettes immediately. What's happening now is, when the OPP officers stop this, they get another call and they have to go to the other call, so they let the guy go. It's all done. So those unmarked cigarettes get sold, the person doesn't get charged, and the problem is not faced.

So we support the stiffening of this particular aspect of the Tobacco Tax Act, but we do need some significant changes in other parts to really make the enforcement work.

I just want to talk about

schedule 16—it deals with the Legislative Assembly Act—which says that MPPs' salaries should be frozen this year. I agree with that, and I believe my party will agree with me on that as well. However, I do believe that there are a lot of people in this province who are paid through the taxpayer who earn significantly more than members of this Legislature. I also believe that there should be some obligation on their part to hold their salaries where they are in this very, very difficult time.

The other matter that we would agree with—because it was raised by Mrs. Witmer—with regard to this act is

schedule 13 of the act, which deals with the ability of the government in terms of how they advertise and try to promote various ministers in various parts of this province. This particular

section of the act was, I imagine, a direct response to a question raised in this Legislature by Mrs. Witmer about the Deputy Premier's profile showing on bus shelters across greater Toronto and who was paying for that particular advertising. This indicates that that kind of advertising will not go on in the future—and paid by ministries.

Now I want to talk about the two more serious parts of the legislation. I have indicated support by my party for a number of sections, and many of the other sections that I haven't commented on would be supported by my party.

However, this bill sort of slipped in there—under

schedule 27 of the bill is the interim allocations act. That act gives permission to the government to spend another $47.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund. For those at home and those who might not understand how the Legislature works, as part of the accountability mechanisms in the Legislature of Ontario, for the government to write a cheque, t